Gradford v. McDougall

Filing 11

ORDER CONSOLIDATING Case 1:17-cv-01525-DAD-GSA(PC) with this Case; ORDER for Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Case No. 1:17-cv-00575-DAD-GSA(PC), within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/27/2018. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 MCDOUGALL, 10 Defendant. 11 1:17-cv-00575-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE 1:17-CV-01525-DAD-GSA-PC WITH THIS CASE ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 1:17-cv00575-DAD-GSA-PC, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 12 13 I. William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 14 15 16 17 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is related under Local Rule 123 to Plaintiff’s pending case 1:17-cv-1525-DAD-GSA-PC (“17-1525”); Gradford v. McDougall.1 The court has reviewed the complaints in both actions and finds that the two cases 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BACKGROUND should be consolidated. II. CONSOLIDATION – LEGAL STANDARD AIf actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). Consolidation may be ordered on the motion of any party or on the court’s own motion whenever it reasonably appears that consolidation would aid in the efficient and economic disposition of a case. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1977). The grant or denial 26 27 28 1 On November 21, 2017, in case 1:17-1525, an order was issued relating the cases to each other. (ECF No. 3 in 17-1525.) In fact, seven of Plaintiff’s pending cases are now related under Local Rule 123. However, the only two cases being consolidated in this order are 17-1525 and this case, 17-0575. 1 1 of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court’s sound discretion, and is not dependent on 2 party approval. Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989); 3 Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993). In determining whether to 4 consolidate actions, the court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 5 for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple 6 A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 7 (This Case) 17-0575 8 Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on April 24, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) 9 On May 30, 2017, the court screened the Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, 10 with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On June 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed the First Amended 11 Complaint. 12 defendant, Deputy McDougall, who was working at the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center 13 in Modesto, California, when Plaintiff was detained there. Plaintiff alleges that on January 19, 14 2017, and February 11, 2017, Deputy McDougall opened and read Plaintiff’s legal mail in 15 retaliation for Plaintiff reporting that Deputy Teixeira threw inmate Ibanez against a wall while 16 inmate Ibanez was having a seizure and was unresponsive on the floor. (ECF No. 11.) In the First Amended Complaint Plaintiff names only one 17 (Related Case) 17-1525 18 Plaintiff filed this action on November 15, 2017. (ECF No. 1 in 17-1525.) In this 19 Complaint Plaintiff names only one defendant, Deputy McDougall, who was working at the 20 Stanislaus County Public Safety Center in Modesto, California, when Plaintiff was detained 21 there. 22 Plaintiff’s legal mail, in retaliation for Plaintiff reporting that Deputy McDougall’s Co- 23 Deputies Teixeira and McCarthy, had threatened Plaintiff after throwing inmate Ibanez against 24 the wall, while inmate Ibanez was having a seizure and was unresponsive on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that on January 19, 2017, Deputy McDougall opened and read 25 Discussion 26 It is clear from a reading of the allegations that the January 19, 2017 incident described 27 in both cases is the same incident. Both cases now proceed against the same sole defendant, 28 Deputy McDougall, and common questions of law and fact appear to exist in these actions. 2 1 Consolidating these actions will avoid unnecessary costs incurred due to identical discovery 2 and motion practice occurring in separate actions. 3 It is in the interest of judicial economy to avoid duplication by consolidating these 4 actions for all purposes. Consolidation will conserve judicial resources and the resources of 5 the parties by addressing identical issues in a single case. It serves judicial economy to “avoid 6 the inefficiency of separate trials involving related parties, witnesses, and evidence.” E.E.O.C. 7 v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998). 8 Consolidation of these actions will not cause a delay, and in fact may expedite the case 9 because defendant McDougall will only need to be served once instead of twice. There is little 10 risk of confusion due to the consolidation of these actions, as the same facts concerning the 11 same defendant are found in both cases, and Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a 12 consolidated complaint and proceed in one action. Finally, the court can discern no prejudice 13 to any of the parties by consolidating these actions, and consolidation will avoid the danger of 14 having inconsistent verdicts in the related cases. The factors considered weigh in favor of 15 consolidating these actions for all purposes. 16 Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint in the consolidated action, 17 including all claims against defendant McDougall and any other related claims Plaintiff 18 believes to be cognizable. The amended complaint shall supercede Plaintiff’s prior complaints, 19 and the court shall screen the consolidated complaint before initiation of service of process on 20 defendant McDougall. 21 III. CONCLUSION 22 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. 24 McDougall) shall be consolidated with this case. 25 2. 26 27 28 Pursuant to this order, Case No. 1:17-cv-1525-DAD-GSA-PC (Gradford v. This case, Case No. 1:17-cv-00575-DAD-GSA-PC, shall be designated as the lead case, and Case No. 1:17-cv-1525-DAD-GSA-PC shall be closed; /// 3. From this date forward, the parties shall use Case No. 1:17-cv-00575-DAD3 1 2 GSA-PC on all documents submitted to the court for the consolidated case; 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to 3 file an amended complaint in the consolidated case, using Case No. 1:17-cv- 4 00575-DAD-GSA-PC, including all of the claims against defendant McDougall 5 and related claims upon which Plaintiff wishes to proceed, as instructed by this 6 order; 7 5. 8 The Clerk’s Office is directed to: 1. 9 Consolidate Case No. 1:17-cv-1525-DAD-GSA-PC (Gradford v. McDougall) with this case; 10 2. Close Case No. 1:17-cv-1525-DAD-GSA-PC; 11 3. Docket and serve this order in both cases, Case No. 1:17-cv-00575- 12 DAD-GSA-PC and Case No. 1:17-cv-1525-DAD-GSA-PC; and 13 4. Send Plaintiff an amended complaint form. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 27, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?